Skip to main content

A crazy idea for Chip Kelly

With the Philadelphia Eagles winning back-to-back games and scoring an impressive 76 points in that stretch under the guidance of Nick Foles, it's going to be awfully difficult for head coach Chip Kelly to replace Foles as the team's starter, no matter how healthy Michael Vick is. My guess is Kelly will rest Vick for the team's next game against Washington before evaluating things further over the team's bye week. If Foles plays well again and the team wins, I have to believe Kelly will stick with the young quarterback after the bye week. However, even if that's the case, I think it would be a shame for Kelly to not utilize a healthy Vick's talents.

In saying that, so long as Foles continues to play well and Vick is healthy, I feel Chip Kelly may want to think about going the unconventional route of having a dual-quarterback system. I'm almost never in favor of such a system, especially at the pro level, but if there's anything most people can agree on about Chip Kelly, it's that he's unconventional.

Both quarterbacks bring something unique to the table. With Vick at the helm, the Eagles have run the ball more efficiently, with that, been able to drain time off the clock better, and for the most part, have moved the ball between the twenties with more consistency. With Foles behind center, the team has been more efficient in the passing game and largely due to that, been better at scoring touchdowns inside the red zone. On the other side of things, Foles isn't a great athlete and isn't suited for running a spread-option attack. Vick, meanwhile, due to his height, is more limited when passing inside the red zone.

Yes, this is a very unconventional and unpopular idea, but with an unconventional coach at the helm and players whom I think would go along with it so long as it was successful (and fun), I think it's something Chip Kelly may definitely want to consider.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"